Man, one really pays for performance. I'm not knocking C/Arx, just taken aback at the amount of time.

Your right, and this is even repurposing code I've already written. The solution though is non-trivial, but screams. Tested with a million points and it's under a second. Still coding though so back to work

Man, one really pays for performance. I'm not knocking C/Arx, just taken aback at the amount of time.

Your right, and this is even repurposing code I've already written. The solution though is non-trivial, but screams. Tested with a million points and it's under a second. Still coding though so back to work

Man, one really pays for performance. I'm not knocking C/Arx, just taken aback at the amount of time.

Your right, and this is even repurposing code I've already written. The solution though is non-trivial, but screams. Tested with a million points and it's under a second. Still coding though so back to work

Can't wait to see it!!

Yes you can, really, you can.

Logged

Perfection is not optional. Everything will work just as you expect it to, unless your expectations are incorrect.Discipline: None at all.--> Donate to theSwamp<--

Thank you all , Your algorithms are all faster than me.In my PC, (E7500 CPU, 4G Mem)Ronjonp 's code, about 34.812967sLee Mac's code, about 40.733018sGile's code 42.111982salanjt's code is about 50sMine first code is very slow. , (could you tell me which cause the very slow) Not very accurate test.

And I hope to see pkohut's super code

I am thinking about the "Divide and conquer algorithm", but I need some time to sort the point in some manner, and not so sure about whether it can be improved, because the sort also need some times.